24,000 emails released to public. Why?

[HankD]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/sarah-palin-emails-released_n_874247.html?ncid=webmail

Why?

What other person in modern history has had this kind of scrutiny?


HankD

 

[carpro]

Fear.

Liberals are terrified by Sarah Palin. Not sure why.

But they're keeping her in business.

 

[mandym]

For someone they say has no credibility they sure do fear her.

 

[Arbo]

For someone they say has no credibility they sure do fear her.

Was thinking the same thing. It seems like most of her credibility with the right these days is derived from the amount of attention she receives from the antagonists in the media.

 

[billwald]

WHY NOT? Why should anything a state government does be secret? It is secrecy that enables evil. At least that's what the guy who wrote the Bible concluded.

 

[exscentric]

Spose they are trying to get her into the race to muddy the waters so they have a better chance with what's his name?

 

[Salty]

WHY NOT? Why should anything a state government does be secret? It is secrecy that enables evil. At least that's what the guy who wrote the Bible concluded.

I see what you are saying, but why is the media demanding emails from the other 56 Governors?

 

[HankD]

WHY NOT? Why should anything a state government does be secret? It is secrecy that enables evil. At least that's what the guy who wrote the Bible concluded.

You mean like passing a secret National healthcare/eugenics Bill without letting we the people of the 57 states read it?

HankD

 

[Salty]

I see what you are saying, but why isn't the media demanding emails from the other 56 Governors?

correction in bold

 

[billwald]

>You mean like passing a secret National healthcare/eugenics Bill without letting we the people of the 57 states read it?

Isn't the point of representative government supposed to be that we trust the people we elect to do what is best for us?

Maybe the other 49 governors know that their emails are public property and are more circumspect? For that matter, anything on baptistboard could end up on the 6 o'clock news.

 

[Salty]

In theory yes, but look at all the shortcomings we have seen over the years....

 

[HankD]

>You mean like passing a secret National healthcare/eugenics Bill without letting we the people of the 57 states read it?

Isn't the point of representative government supposed to be that we trust the people we elect to do what is best for us?

Yes but there is another factor Bill. The consent of the governed. We can't consent to a bill the details of which is secret (until it is passed, the money allocated, and the Czaars appointed).

Maybe the other 49 governors know that their emails are public property and are more circumspect? For that matter, anything on baptistboard could end up on the 6 o'clock news.

Or maybe the other 56 governors don't terrify the progressive left.

The mere mention of Palin's name sends progressives into a state of catharsis.

HankD

 

[billwald]

I think it means consent to be governed. It does not mean agreeing with every law. Do you ignore the laws with which you disagree?

 

[Salty]

I think it means consent to be governed. It does not mean agreeing with every law. Do you ignore the laws with which you disagree?

Rosa Parks did -

 

[billwald]

What had Rosa Parks to do with you and I? I get my jollies obeying the speed limit, not breaking it.

 

[Salty]

What had Rosa Parks to do with you and I? I get my jollies obeying the speed limit, not breaking it.

You asked: Do you ignore the laws with which you disagree?

and Rosa Parks disagreed with and ignored that law

All I did was answer you question.

 

[HankD]

I think it means consent to be governed. It does not mean agreeing with every law. Do you ignore the laws with which you disagree?

"...that government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

It means both. Primarily it means the consent of the governed and is naturally complimented by the right of "redress of grievances" and the ballot box, the path to take when one feels the government has overstepped it's authority or has gone against the will of the people.

HankD

 

[Crabtownboy]

Rosa Parks did -

Yes, and she was willing to pay the price of breaking the law. She was fired from her job as a seamstress in a local department store for her action.

Remember this was an era when in the South:

Black people could not sit just anywhere they wanted in the bus. They had to sit in the back of the bus. If white people were already sitting in the front of the bus, the black person had to pay the fare, get off the bus, and reenter at the back door. Sometimes the bus driver just drove off and left them before they could get back on at the back door. If the bus filled up with people, the driver would ask a black person to move so he could reposition the movable sign which divided the black and white sections.

http://gardenofpraise.com/ibdrosa.htm

A better question would be is it permissible for a Christian to oppose an unfair law?

 

[targus]

So the lamestream media has been on the job digging through her emails for a while now...

So where is the dirt?

They must be really disappointed right about now. :laugh: :laugh:

 

[mandym]

Isn't the point of representative government supposed to be that we trust the people we elect to do what is best for us?

Didn't you just say secrecy leads to evil? Not to consistent are you?